Attacks on British interests - Blair was warned

[toontra]

Does anyone remember the leaked report by British security experts to the Goverrnment prior to the war which stated that military action in Iraq would make terrorist attacks against the British more likely?

Perhaps we are (sadly) seeing this bourne out in Turkey.

[yamabushi]

That is what terrorists do. Leaving them alone isn't an option since they will continue to make threats and demands as well as use violence regardless of how nice you are to them.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by yamabushi
That is what terrorists do. Leaving them alone isn't an option since they will continue to make threats and demands as well as use violence regardless of how nice you are to them.

Err:rolleyes: leaving them alone is an option. Australia is next to the largest Islamic nation in the world (Indonesia) and the first terror attack aimed to hurt Australian's was on Oct12 2002, After might I add that Little Johnny started playing regional sherrif, following GWB's lead.

[toontra]

Originally posted by yamabushi
That is what terrorists do. Leaving them alone isn't an option since they will continue to make threats and demands as well as use violence regardless of how nice you are to them.

With due respect, I think you are making the mistake that over half the people in your country are still making - i.e. that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and other similar international terrorist attacks; they were not, no matter how Bush and Blair try to fudge the issue for their own ends.

Now, however, since the war, Iraq has become a "playground" (as one commentator put it) for terrorists, sucking the in from all over the region. The war is also likely to have gained support for organisations like Al Qaida amongst ordinary Muslims who were shocked at the UK & US's bilateral action.

In this light, would you not agree that the report Blair suppressed before the war (unlike the glaring publicity he made sure all his pro-war material received) may well turn out to be a lot more accurate an assessment than any of his dossiers on WMD.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by toontra
Iraq has become a "playground" (as one commentator put it) for terrorists, sucking the in from all over the region.

this is in dispute. i'd read an article recently (can't find it, natch) where the CIA et. al. reckon there's actually been very little influx of foreign fighters.

it seems ordinary iraqis are taking up arms against the occupying forces.

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by zimv20
it seems ordinary iraqis are taking up arms against the occupying forces.

Gee:rolleyes: what a suprise:confused: How would you react if France lets say decided that the US was a threat to world peace and invaded them. Forced the admin into hiding and declared martial law.

Bush is a treat to world peace, and he has shown this on many occasions.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by manitoubalck
How would you react if France lets say decided that the US was a threat to world peace and invaded them.

yeah, that news didn't surprise me at all. i'd always taken the "it's the foreign fighters" analysis w/ a giant grain of salt.

i'm way on board w/ the US-is-invaded analogy. i think i've demonstrated myself to be a violence-as-a-last-resort kind of guy, but i'd fight like hell against an occupation, regardless of how much i hated the administration.

[wwworry]

It's a mistake to think that people can conceive of only one set of option: if I hate saddam I love the US. One can easily hate both if one was an Iraqi.

[Dont Hurt Me]

lets blame everything bad on George, terrorist are nothing more then thugs,murderers,killers with no value on life not even their own its that simple. these killers are looking to do what they do anyways its about time we go after these criminals everywhere since we pretty much had ignored them until 911. Its so easy for the other side to say lets bury our heads in the sand and maybe the problem will go away. the problem isnt George the problem is any fanatical religion that teaches pure hate towards a group of people. children are brought up in these countries to hate.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
lets blame everything bad on George, terrorist are nothing more then thugs,murderers,killers with no value on life not even their own its that simple.

Just because they're willing to sacrifice their own lives for a greater cause doesn't mean they don't value life.

And since when has hitting the military targets of an invading force been the action of thugs who murder?

The Iraqi insurgents aren't blowing up busloads of American citizens. They're not terrorists.

these killers are looking to do what they do anyways its about time we go after these criminals everywhere since we pretty much had ignored them until 911.

Hardly. We funded them.

Its so easy for the other side to say lets bury our heads in the sand and maybe the problem will go away.

No one is saying we should ignore the problem. Most people opposed are simply angry because:

1) Violence was chosen as a first resort
2) It was targeted at a nation that did nothing to us nor posed a threat to us.

the problem isnt George the problem is any fanatical religion that teaches pure hate towards a group of people. children are brought up in these countries to hate.

As are many of our children.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
lets blame everything bad on George, terrorist are nothing more then thugs,murderers,killers with no value on life not even their own its that simple. these killers are looking to do what they do anyways its about time we go after these criminals everywhere since we pretty much had ignored them until 911. Its so easy for the other side to say lets bury our heads in the sand and maybe the problem will go away. the problem isnt George the problem is any fanatical religion that teaches pure hate towards a group of people. children are brought up in these countries to hate.

A word I'm seeing more and more is guerrilla. I think it is much more appropriate than terrorist. Terrorists struch the WTC and Istanbul but now, that there is no proof whatsoever that these are foreign fighters in Iraq, we need to face up to the truth that guerilla warfare is taking place there. Iraqis don't want us there and they are voicing their opinion.

I agree with your fanatical religion analogy but too many americans fail to see that our approach is the flip side of that coin. The religion of the dollar under the guise of "democracy" is partly to blame for the mess in the middle east. If it's not democratic and purchased with a greenback and cloaked in pseudo fundamentalist christian rhetoric then it is simply irrelevant. The teaching of hate is on both sides not just the islamists.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm way on board w/ the US-is-invaded analogy. i think i've demonstrated myself to be a violence-as-a-last-resort kind of guy, but i'd fight like hell against an occupation, regardless of how much i hated the administration.

Did you know Saddam handed out machine guns to civilians in Baghdad before the invasion so they could defend themselves?

I'd take my crooked bastard of a president over the most upstanding general of an invading army. I know most Americans feel the same way. So does Bush, which is why the WH has led a campaign of disinformation and detachment for Iraq.

MTV did a show before the war about life in middle-class Iraq. The kids were just like American kids! They listened to the newest CDs, skateboarded, watched popular shows on TV and lived in nice little suburban houses. They went to school and had crushes on classmates.

It was the opposite of the image we've been pressed to believe -- that Iraq was a nation backwards and teeming with religious fanatics.
By invading, we may have created just that in place of a society that was modern and stable.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
children are brought up in these countries to hate.

and you were brought up in this country to hate.

[yamabushi]

Saddam commited numerous acts of terrorism without any help from Al Qaeda. He is a monster in his own right. The current attacks in Iraq have been on both military and civilian targets. Aid workers are one common target. Why? Because if they succeed in improving the quality of life for Iraqis then these guerrillas will begin to lose the support of their own people. The attacks appear to be organized by military leaders who are loyal to Saddam and wish to hold on to their power no matter the cost in human suffering. They are more than willing to manipulate their own people into casting off democracy and basic freedoms as tools of the evil U.S. so that they can regain control.

Since some comments were getting quite personal I decided to get a bit offended and I apologize if my reply seems crass. Oh, and it's okay to dislike Bush and support military action against terrorists at the same time. And as an American I hardly want to spread Christianity throughout the world since I am not even Christian myself. Let's also skip the geography lesson. I am well aware of what has been happening in Indonesia. Besides the numerous papers I have written that involve Indonesia, I have also drawn complete maps of Southeast Asia and Oceania entirely from memory.:p

[visor]

actually, the howto is quite simple.

terrorists are criminals, and criminals are persued by the police.

That implies that police is not the military, Don't ever try to use open force on terrorists. Open force in the sense of great military action such as the war on iraq. It puts you in a very very bad position. either you elimitate all terrorists in one great rush, wich is just about impossible, at least without enormous civil damage, or be in a civil war position where all your military strength is drained by hit and run action.

Americans should know. REALLY know. Most of american history was greatly infuenced by large Armys against inferiour opponents. The indians where mostly eliminated, the britans (a large army) was demoralized by hit and run attacs of militia.
You don't have to look so far in history - take vietnam, take the russians in afghanistan, take the Germans of the 2nd world war - they where all compromized by small but hard to get resistance. All tried to use harder force to get a grip on their opponents, but the tighter they gripped - the more people slipped trough their fingers.

History is full of great armies beeing fended off after attacking others...
Napoleon was defeated in russia, germans in wwone didn't get far in france, Cesar couln#t make it past the limes, the osmans where defeated in austria, the crusaders catched their bloody nose in the middle east, the arabs where horribly defeated after attacking israel, israel is in turn struggling with terrorists that breed in the refugee camps that israel made necessary...

the only war that i can think of with a real , presumably good, outcome was WW2 - with the attackers beeing defeated again, and beeing defeated so badly that there really was a ground for a new society.
But gee, what a battle that was... took millions of lives and half a century of occupation to get where we are now.

[jonapete2001]

There is way to much defending of terrorists in this comunity. A lot of they are bad oh but so are we kind of talk. That is bull ****. Who cares if Bush or Blair said Iraq was involved in 911(has not been proven either way). The fact is he was a bad dictator, not the worst, but bad. Bush Sr. went after him. Clinton went after him(in a more limited fashion). And Now Bush Jr. and Blair are there to finish the job. People say that the US and Britian used force as the first option. Are they dumb? can they not remember the United Nations resolutions that were passed continuosly for 10 years with out any worthwhile result. Do they not remember the last attempt were Germany and France turned their backs on the US and Britian? Force was used as a last result. yes it is true that they could have waited 10 more years for the UN to get off its high horse and act, but does anyone think they would have?

Iraq might be instable for a while, but in the end it will be for the good. And the US does not create terrorists, it a a radical branch of islamic fundamentalists that spawn the terrorists. Stop blaming the US and Britian for terror and look to islam for the answer to that delema.

[abdul]

islamic fundamentalist spawn terrorists?? i guess the roman catholics in Ireland will be pleased to be named muslim, and the in Spain as well as the terrorist organisations in columbia and China. Stop branding terrorism woith a religion please that is so narrowminded!

the UN is not there to decide who is good and bad but there to keep the peace. if that is your motto why the hell is no one talking about china? they have a dictator, they have had much worse human right records. .......oh sorry is it cos the US can make a lot of money from China now?

The resolutions that were agreed in the UN if i am correct said somethig alot the lines that force will be used IF saddam was found to be in breach of the UN resolution.....he wasnt and the facts that was sold to us werent brought by the french and germans. Saddam even allowed UN inspectors back in and they were searching for weapons for months! so the question is were the UK dumb to follow the more dumb US? .......yes, they believed and created there own rumours about what is happening in Iraq

[Ugg]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
There is way to much defending of terrorists in this comunity. A lot of they are bad oh but so are we kind of talk. That is bull ****. Who cares if Bush or Blair said Iraq was involved in 911(has not been proven either way). ?

Iraq might be instable for a while, but in the end it will be for the good. And the US does not create terrorists, it a a radical branch of islamic fundamentalists that spawn the terrorists. Stop blaming the US and Britian for terror and look to islam for the answer to that delema.

Who is defending terrorists? Certainly no one in this forum neither on any of the extreme leftist websites I occasionally visit. That is one of the most vapid and unfounded remarks I have ever heard. Have you been listening too much to rush?

I'm a firm believer in the idea that "for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction". It is simplistic to blame terrorism solely on US policies of the last 5 decades but to deny that those policies have contributed to terrorism is equally simplistic.

The only verifiable terrorist activity that sh supported was his gift of money to Palestinian suicide bombers' families. It is very probable that he contributed to other terrorist activities but the US has been unable to find any conclusive proof. gw lied to the US about sh's connections to 9/11 and he should pay for it.

Also radical US religons are responsible for terrorism, or have you already forgotten about Timothy McVeigh, Ruby Ridge, and Waco? To claim that the cause of terrorism is rooted in Islam is to ignore that the US has been pretty good at creating its own terrorists. Our support of Saddam, bin Laden, the corrupt family of Saud, Sharon, etc has furthered terrorism across the world and we need to accept that US intervention is not the solution to the world's problems. Despite gw's degree in history he has shown very little appreciation of it in his pursuit of an American empire.

You would do well to stop raving at the left and start looking at what is really going on both here and abroad.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by Ugg
Who is defending terrorists? Certainly no one in this forum neither on any of the extreme leftist websites I occasionally visit. That is one of the most vapid and unfounded remarks I have ever heard. Have you been listening too much to rush?

I'm a firm believer in the idea that "for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction". It is simplistic to blame terrorism solely on US policies of the last 5 decades but to deny that those policies have contributed to terrorism is equally simplistic.

The only verifiable terrorist activity that sh supported was his gift of money to Palestinian suicide bombers' families. It is very probable that he contributed to other terrorist activities but the US has been unable to find any conclusive proof. gw lied to the US about sh's connections to 9/11 and he should pay for it.

Also radical US religons are responsible for terrorism, or have you already forgotten about Timothy McVeigh, Ruby Ridge, and Waco? To claim that the cause of terrorism is rooted in Islam is to ignore that the US has been pretty good at creating its own terrorists. Our support of Saddam, bin Laden, the corrupt family of Saud, Sharon, etc has furthered terrorism across the world and we need to accept that US intervention is not the solution to the world's problems. Despite gw's degree in history he has shown very little appreciation of it in his pursuit of an American empire.

You would do well to stop raving at the left and start looking at what is really going on both here and abroad.

Ah yes the claim that Christianity spawns terrorism. I isolated cases I would agree. WIth exception to Ireland(only one place) Christianity has had only a few radicals(in recent memory) Islam, while having good intentions can go bad in many more cases. No other religion has had so much terrorism spawned form it in recent time.

Yes, no one on this board directly said damn those terrorists are great, but to say ok the terrorists are bad but it is not their fault it is ours. We should be trying to fix our selves and then those guys would not want to blow us up. This like telling a rape victim that she asked for it because of the way she dressed.(Give me a break). I am proud to be an american, and I stand behind my country because it is the only one I have. I am just sick of the blame america first crowd.

Many people here cry out against Bush about the civil liberties that he is depriving you of( My life has not changed due to patriot act, how has yours). No one ever crys out about the horible acts of violence and bad human rights imposed by Hussien or Bin Ladin. It is all rag on Bush, rag on Blair. Why not rag on the real bad guys. If you think Bush or Blair are evil, I dont think you know what evil is. Many here think bush is having this war for the good of big business, will you not even concede that maybe he is doing it because he thinks it is in americas and britians interest( the rest of the western world for that matter). I am sick of people acting like they know what is going on inside there heads.

Oh and Ugg I dont listen to ruch, I come to my own conclusion.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Ah yes the claim that Christianity spawns terrorism. I isolated cases I would agree. WIth exception to Ireland(only one place) Christianity has had only a few radicals(in recent memory) Islam, while having good intentions can go bad in many more cases. No other religion has had so much terrorism spawned form it in recent time.


dude, your religious-centric blame mechanism is nothing more than poorly disguised racism.

i hate bigotry. do yourself a big favor and get some real education: see the ****ing world, make friends w/ people who aren't white and who don't speak very good english.

and in the meantime, think long and hard as to why you have so much hate for people you've never met.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Ah yes the claim that Christianity spawns terrorism. I isolated cases I would agree. WIth exception to Ireland(only one place) Christianity has had only a few radicals(in recent memory) Islam, while having good intentions can go bad in many more cases. No other religion has had so much terrorism spawned form it in recent time.


Have you forgoten about the former Yugoslavia so quickly? I can see why you would want to forget it, since it doesn't fit your stereotypical view of the bloodthirsty muslim, but if you remember there Christians were commiting acts of terrorism (sponsored by the state no less) against muslims. Conservatives were livid when Clinton went around the UN and got the support of NATO to oust Milosevic. "We don't do nation building" was the rallying cry. Funny how times change.

Here (http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=76) is what Tom Delay was saying about our venture into Bosnia:
IN HIS OWN WORDS: WHAT TOM DELAY USED TO SAY…

•_“This is [President Clinton’s] war.” Washington Post, 4/14/99
_
•_“The Kosovo operation is different and oxymoronic._ It is a ‘peace war’ waged by ‘peace hawks’ pursuing a dovish social agenda._ Peace hawks are global idealists and former anti-war activists, including the youthful Bill Clinton.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99
_
•_“Doing good on a worldwide scale appeals to peace hawks, who are motivated by altruism, not patriotism.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99
_
•_“There's no national interest of the United States in Kosovo. It's flawed policy and it was flawed to go in. I think this president is one of the least effective presidents of my life time. He's hollowed out our forces while running round the world with these adventures.”_ The Guardian, 5/17/99
_
•_“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery._ Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99_
_____
•_“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world._ The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly._ We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.” Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99
__
•_“Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my complete opposition to sending American troops to Kosovo._ There is simply no vision to this mission._ There is a six-year trend to send American troops anywhere for any reason, but there are no consistent goals that tie all of these missions together.”_ Floor Statement on Resolution on Peacekeeping Operations in Kosovo, 3/11/99
_
•_“I rise today to state that no defense funds should be used for ground forces in Kosovo unless authorized by Congress.” Floor Statement, 4/15/99_
__
_•_“So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of [sic] carrying it out._ I hope my colleagues will vote against this resolution.” Floor Statement on S. Con. Res. 21, 4/15/99

•_“It is clear that any deployment to Kosovo will similarly drag on and go enormously over budget.”_ Floor Statement, 4/28/99
__
•_“When asked the question, ‘what if he does not come to the table,’ they said, ‘well, we will go to Phase 2, and Phase 2 is that we will bomb for a few more days. Then he will be going to the table, by crackie.’ And when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ then they said, ‘well, we will bomb for another week and that will force him to come to the table and this will be all over with.’ And then when we asked, ‘Then, what?’ there was silence. This administration started a war without a plan farther along than two weeks.”_ Floor Statement, 4/28/99_

•_“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.”_ Floor Statement, 4/28/99

•_“Instead of sending in ground troops, we should pull out the forces we now have in the region. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should send ground troops to Kosovo and I do not think we should be bombing in the Balkans, and I do not think that NATO should be destroyed by changing its mission into a humanitarian invasion force.” Floor Statement, 4/28/99

•_“So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it out. I hope my colleagues will vote against the resolution.”_ Floor Statement, 4/28/99
_
•_“It’s very simple._ The president is not supported by the House, and the military is supported by the House.”_ As quoted in USA Today, regarding Floor votes on Kosovo, 4/30/99
_
•_“For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce.”_ Floor Statement opposing resolution commending America’s successful campaign in Kosovo, 7/1/99

Then there was Iraq:
•_House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R- Texas) today expressed his lack of surprise at Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's (D-S.D.) second-guessing of our commander in chief on the eve of war with Iraq._ “Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet-man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?” DeLay asked._ “Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle.” – Rep. Tom DeLay Press Release, 3/18/03

•_"You still have the Starks of the world, and the Sheila Jackson-Lees, who are trying to have it both ways. They start every comment with 'I certainly support the troops,' and then go denigrate why they're there. That's not supporting the troops, because you are telling that soldier directly he's risking his life for something that's wrong, and that has consequences. It has consequences in morale; it has consequences in soldiers second-guessing orders; it has consequences in soldiers questioning themselves as to what their commitment is." – Rep. Tom DeLay, Washington Times, 3/27/03

•_“I think it's hypocritical to say on the one hand that you support the troops while on the other hand you say the reason they are risking their lives is wrong. I think it undermines the effort and the unity this country ought to be showing right now."- Rep. Tom DeLay, Washington Times, 3/20/03

•_“Well, I think it's not the time to be questioning this president on how he is carrying out the war. George W. Bush, thank God we have him as president right now and thank God that we've got all of the people that he has, really strong individuals that around him, fighting this war…The President’s doing it under great criticism, unfortunately, but hopefully, that criticism will now come to an end, and we we'll all unify and support our troops and support the effort and win the war.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, CNN InsidePolitics 3/19/03

•_“This destructive rhetoric does nothing more than demoralize our troops and second-guess our commander in chief.” – Rep. Tom DeLay, Press Release, 3/20/03

[jonapete2001]

Zim,

again with the american bashing. do you guys deny that there is a horrible branch of islam that spawn terrorists. call me a racist or a bigot all you want. You make to any asumptions about me and who i hang out with. See the world, ok.(what for, usa is the best place). I did not ever say that islam is the bad religion and we should all hate them.(where did you get that from). I merely said that there is a huge faction of islamic terrorist. How can you deny that. Bring up christianity all you want. I dont care. Lets talk about the now. Right now Christian terrorists are not threatening american lives or the lives of many others. Islamic terrorists are. Get over it religion has to do with everything. Politics, war, diplomacy. Untill you can see that you have a lot to learn. Get a real education, yourself. Speak with some people who speak good english and had relatives blown the **** up in the world trade center. Oh and why do you assume i do not know anyone who is not white. I have mainly white friends and some hispanic friends. Oh and one or two asian-american friends as well. Just because one is conservative does not make them a raving racist who wants to segregate. I am sorry I do not fit into your small minded mold of a conservative. Talk about sterotype.

To answer your question about why i hate the terrorists that want to kill all of us westerners. It is because they blow people up. they kill jews in israel every day almost. And oh yeah they blew up the world trade center. My question is why dont you hate them as well.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Zim,

again with the american bashing.


????? where did i do that?


do you guys deny that there is a horrible branch of islam that spawn terrorists.


i believe that there are people using islam to further their own ends. i'm saddened that it's effective as rallying tool.

but in no way do i blame the religion itself, as you do.

Just because one is conservative does not make them a raving racist who wants to segregate. I am sorry I do not fit into your small minded mold of a conservative. Talk about sterotype.

ha! i'm not stereotyping you, i've looked at what you've written and it's clear to me what your assorted problems are.

you are fearful, angry and have a lot of hate. you direct it at people you don't know (muslims), whereas i strongly suspect the reality is you have quite a bit of disdain for yourself. whether that stems from personal failings of a romantic or career (student?) nature, i'm not sure. but i do feel pretty sorry for you.

[yamabushi]

mactastic- Good list of quotes. It shows that politics has little to do with reality and much to do with mudslinging in order to gain more power. I wish more more people would remember that on election day.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
See the world, ok.(what for, usa is the best place).

:D Man, you are really funny. And how do you know that the USA are the best place, when you never travelled other countries? How ignorant is that? :eek:

I find it funny, that I met a lot of citizens of the USA who would like to live somewhere else, after they travelled a lot. So how it is possible they came to a different conclusion?

They are different ways of life and other nice places in the world. The american way of life is not the best for everybody, even not for some americans.

There is an old german saying: Reisen bildet! (Travelling educates!) I think it holds a lot of truth in it.

Nobody wants to take away from you that you like where you live and that you are proud of your country, but when it only comes out of pure ignorance and the inability to be open-minded to other views and cultures, it is pitiful.

groovebuster

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by groovebuster
:D Man, you are really funny. And how do you know that the USA are the best place, when you never travelled other countries? How ignorant is that? :eek:

I find it funny, that I met a lot of citizens of the USA who would like to live somewhere else, after they travelled a lot. So how it is possible they came to a different conclusion?

They are different ways of life and other nice places in the world. The american way of life is not the best foro everybody, even not for some americans.



There is an old german saying: Reisen bildet! (Travelling educates!) I think it holds a lot of truth in it.

Nobody wants to take away from you that you like where you live and that you are proud of your country, but when it only comes out of pure ignorance and the inability to be open-minded to other views and cultures, it is pitiful.

groovebuster






It was not meant to be serious. i know there are good other places as well(canada comes to mind) and that others like other countries too. if they did not they would all move here. i have traveled somewhat(not alot). Also the immigration history of america can speak for itself.

to have adifferent view point is not ignorant!

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
to have adifferent view point is not ignorant!

Of course not. But if the arguments that view is based on are mostly prejudices and uninformed rants, then it is.

Also it really depends on how you discuss things. A statement like "USA is the best place!" generalizes and leaves no room for discussion, since it is presented somehow as a law of nature everybody has to agree on and needs no further backing by facts. Whereas saying something like "The USA are a pretty nice place to live from what I know so far!" includes that it is just your personal opinion, you don't know everything and you are open minded to hear new info to refine your position and last but not least you like to discuss the facts.

Another german saying: Der Ton macht die Musik! (The tone makes the music!) If somebody is very aggressive about a subject in the way he chooses his words and doesn't back up his statements with facts he wants to discuss, the rest of the gang easily (and in most cases they are right) tends to believe that fellow is ignorant and any discussion renders kind of useless.

I understand that you were not serious about your statement, but still I think it is exemplary for some of the other stuff you said.

Have a nice day. :cool:

groovebuster